People who understand quality pay for it, everyone else buys the rubbish that passes as merely a consumer item.

Indeed, this would be a positive step forward for Nuclear power, however it is unlikely that the government would accept the liability.

It is unlikely that current reactors would meet the rigor of their safety criteria, considering that Naval reactors are under considerably stringent operating parameters.

For profit and Nuclear power seem to be incompatible. Properly managed they could provide a key economic input in time of financial downturn as an impetus for driving economic activity. Sadly, there a few politicians who would support such a long term vision at this time.

No they don't. The first fact is that the energy to extract the uranium in the first place to fuel the reactor over it's life time equates roughly a third of the reactors total output over it's lifetime.

The second is that the energy to decommission the reactor at the end of its service life equates to roughly another third of the total energy output.

This is what the science of examining the entire Nuclear fuel cycle has revealed.

To begin with it is grossly inefficient (0.3%) compared to the energy potential of the uranium. Current technology cannot extract the full energetic potential of the uranium. There are ways to make it more efficient however it requires people like you to accept the faults of the industry and start to evaluate it in an honest way so the faults can be addressed and progress made.

Nuclear Power is a fantastic, technological innovation that is ultimately pointless if it does not provide the energy returns and leaves a radiological legacy for future generations the way a carbon legacy was left for our generation.

Nuclear Industry PR is extremely effective because it is a complex subject so I don't blame you for repeating it. However you can choose to accept the PR or you can challenge the assumptions it has created with the independent, formally peer reviewed science I have provided.

You might find that the only basis that exists for a challenge is that the TPP is not constitutional.

The most recent example is passing the data retention laws so that the movie industry can do speculative invoicing on Australians. The Free trade agreement signed over a decade ago started eroding our health care system, which is mostly free for all citizens with little benefit to Australians. I don't blame Americans themselves because from what I see they are suffering at the hands of the same, powerful, vested interests as we are.

I've founnd that addressing them directly with a letter is the single best way to have your voice heard. They may even write back. By letter I mean snail mail on paper, addressed to them. Nothing like a little one one one conversation.

Which is unfortunate because co-operation and compromise is a key part of conducting a democracy.

I couldn't agree more, we have followed a similar path here in Australia. It is like the politicians have given up and now the game is how blatantly they can deceive the electorate.

All we can do is our best to hold them accountable.

Well if there is no data to support a decision then only a fool would expose themselves to the risk of developing cancer. Since it is not possible to examine all the food produced there, there is an actual risk of ingesting radioisotopes. That means there is an actual risk of developing cancer from eating it.

There are two key input facts. 1) Bio-accumulation or radioisotopes occur. 2) The Fukushima plants released radioisotopes. So to properly asses the risk of eating Fukushima food you would need to use a geiger counter over the meal so that you could assume responsibility for the risk for yourself and fully understand the risk.

It would be foolish to say that there is no risk, when there is one. So for most people it is just simpler to not expose themselves to that risk.

Well that is a really bad comparison because by not immunizing a person they are exposed to a risk, i.e. you are taking a risk by not immunizing (plus you are risking others).

By not eating Fukushima food you are not exposing yourself to a risk of ingesting radioisotopes.

Alternatively, it is being cautious. Now you believe it is fine and prepared to take the risk so go ahead and eat it, you believe that every bit of food will be checked and every part will be ok, so go ahead and take the risk, the odds are in your favour and you'll probably be ok.

However bio-accumulation and radio-analogues are not FUD. Ingest them and you will get a cancer if the odds aren't in your favour.

Your whole point is like telling someone to put their balls on a table and hand you a knife. If you want to take the risk, you put your balls on the table.

Apparently they will be teaching children about Linux and the virtues of open source.

From the photos it looks like the mountains have pushed up through the ice. I wonder if that is how the 'Moated Mountain" formed, nitrogen ice eroding the geology.

I have to say this is an appropriate use of the word 'amazing' - Thank you NASA (and the American taxpayer)

I don't know the math to calculate if you could see any other planets, I don't think so, however I can imagine that it would be the blackest night in our solar system.

Even the most cursory research will show you that the nuclear industry has significant CFC *greenhouse* gas emissions used in the enrichment process. Dig a little deeper and you will find the US enrichment is driven my coal generating facilities.

The failure to tolerate the most straight forward introspection shows that the nuclear fanbois out there do more damage to the Nuclear Industry than anyone, preventing any significant progress to the industry. No facts, no reason, no argument - every single time.

That's hilarious. Like any corporation the Nuclear industry charter is profitability, safety is a cost and Nuclear safety is very expensive indeed.

It is not an article, it is the peer reviewed science that was used by the European Parliament and other credible bodies. This is what scientific research on the Nuclear Industry found.

*IF* it was able to extract the potential energy there instead of the 0.3% that reactor technology can extract.

And what do you offer to back up the claim that the actual science is bogus? FYI, these are the Universities internationally that contributed to the report. Australia. University of Sydney, University of New South Wales, Monash University, Belgium. NPX Research Leuven, IMEC Leuven, Germany. Universität Regensburg, Öko Institut Darmstadt, Italy. University of Florence, Netherlands. University of Utrecht, Technical University Eindhoven, ECN Petten, Singapore. National University of Singapore, Spain. Bank of Spain Economics

Switzerland. CERN Geneva, ETH Zürich

UK. Imperial College London, University of Edenburgh, Oxford Research Group London, USA Brookhaven National Laboratory, Columbia University New York, Princeton University

If you are able to overcome your prejudices and stop relying on your assumptions then you might learn what and why the issues exist.

*IF* a nuclear power plant would operate at 100% of its nominal capacity during a full year without interruptions, which they don't. AND *IF* the ore grades mean the energetic input costs are low, which they aren't.

If you actually intend to have a serious discussion, instead of cherry picking lines from the report to make a point why don't you try honestly evaluating what is there? The "Aprs nous le dluge" attitude, that is what I'm on about.

I'll refer you to chapter 16 on "Energy Debt"

After closedown of a nuclear power plants a massive energy debt is left to society, increasing over time due to the unavoidable deterioration of the temporary storage facilities and increasing leaks.

You will find that statement is in context.